APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

A high-profile high school football coach and athletic director filed a defamation and false light invasion of privacy claim against the athletic association his school belonged to and other defendants. The Circuit Court of Davidson County granted summary judgment to the defendants because it found no evidence from which a jury could infer malice. We affirm.

The trial court granted the father's petition to suspend the mother's impending visitation with the parties' 13-year-old daughter. The mother then moved the trial judge to recuse herself from any further involvement in proceedings relating to custody of the child or to visitation. She claimed that an ex parte communication between the father's attorney and the judge prior to the hearing on the father's petition created the appearance of partiality or bias. The judge denied the mother's motion to recuse. We affirm.

In this medical malpractice case, Plaintiff appeals summary judgment based upon the failure of Plaintiff's medical expert to establish the requisite familiarity with the standard of care in the community in which Defendant practices or in a similar community. We affirm the action of the trial court.

This appeal arises from a contempt proceeding against Attorney Andrew J. Shookhoff. The juvenile court held Mr. Shookhoff in contempt for his failure to appear at a review hearing involving his minor client. This appeal ensued. For the following reasons, we reverse.

This appeal arises from the denial of a petition to modify visitation with a minor child. The trial court denied the father's petition, finding that the father failed to show that as a result of a material change in circumstance, his daughter had been harmed or was at risk of substantial harm due to the existing visitation arrangement. The primary issue on appeal is whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard in dismissing the father's petition. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

Trial court held that doctrine of collateral estoppel barred Appellant's civil suit against Appellee for damages stemming from an alleged assault where Appellant had previously been convicted of assaulting Appellee during the incident in question. We reverse and remand.

Patient filed medical malpractice action against physician alleging negligence in performance of operation procedure and negligence in physician's post-operative care. Jury returned verdict for physician on the issue of negligent post-operative care but deadlocked on the issue of negligence in performance of surgery. Trial court declared a mistrial and entered an order denying physician's motion for entry of final judgment on the issue of post-operative care and ordering a new trial on all of patient's claims. Physician was granted interlocutory appeal. The only issue for review is whether, under the circumstances of this case, a new trial should be confined only to the issues of the physician's negligence in performing the surgery. We affirm and remand.